linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC V2 13/17] kmap: Add stray write protection for device pages

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200719041319.GA478573@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
Date:   Sat, 18 Jul 2020 21:13:19 -0700
From:   Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V2 13/17] kmap: Add stray write protection for device
 pages

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:21:39AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:20:52AM -0700, ira.weiny@...el.com wrote:
> > @@ -31,6 +32,20 @@ static inline void invalidate_kernel_vmap_range(void *vaddr, int size)
> >  
> >  #include <asm/kmap_types.h>
> >  
> > +static inline void enable_access(struct page *page)
> > +{
> > +	if (!page_is_access_protected(page))
> > +		return;
> > +	dev_access_enable();
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline void disable_access(struct page *page)
> > +{
> > +	if (!page_is_access_protected(page))
> > +		return;
> > +	dev_access_disable();
> > +}
> 
> These are some very generic names, do we want them to be a little more
> specific?

I had them named kmap_* but Dave (I think it was Dave) thought they did not
really apply strictly to kmap_*.

They are static to this file which I thought may be sufficient to 'uniqify'
them?

I'm ok to change them but that is how I arrived at this name.

Ira